#Hs 129 b1 tank buster trial#

In August 1944, the RAF claimed to have destroyed 135 tanks in the Goodwood area (Battle for Caen).

#Hs 129 b1 tank buster trial#

The range and armor piercing capabilities were sufficient for anti-armor duties, but a trial conducted by the RAF under best possible conditions revealed the low precision of unguided rockets: In two attack runs, four typhoons fired all of their 64 rockets on a stationary, pre-painted Panther and only three managed to hit the marked tank.Ī Hawker Typhoon armed with rockets and 20 mm cannons All bark, no bite Four fins stabilized the rocket’s trajectory. These recoilless projectiles consisted of a propellant filled steel tube with an armour piercing (or high explosive) shell screwed into the warhead. Armed with four 20mm Hispano cannons (which could only do serious damage to the engine compartment of a tank) it could carry two 500 lbs (227 kg) or 1000 lbs (454 kg) bombs or alternatively, eight unguided type RP-3 rockets. The Hawker Typhoon was initially developed as a high altitude interceptor and as a replacement for the Hawker Hurricane, but several flaws caused the RAF to employ it as a fighter bomber. It went through a long list of improvements with later versions being up-armoured and geared up for close air support.

The P-47 was a robust fighter with a solid high altitude performance dedicated for heavy bomber escort duty. P-47 Thunderbolt of the 404th Fighter Group in flight over Belgium, March 1945 The main workhorses of the CAS squadrons were the American Thunderbolt and the British Typhoon. Airbases were plentiful and accessible, the enemy concentrated in a relatively confined area. The Allies possessed air supremacy, coupled with a substantial ammunition, fuel and overall logistical advantage. the pilot’s ability to distinguish between tanks and APCs. Identifying targets would cause another problem, e.g. Multiple pilots would sometimes engage the same target (every so often, an already destroyed or burned out vehicle), leading to an even greater disparity between actual losses and claimed tank “kills”. Ergo, strikes would result in the tanks being partially destroyed or superficially damaged (occasionally blown off the road) and, after successful retrieval, sent back to the repair shops. The main problem for Close Air Support pilots when engaging enemy armor were the inadequacies of the weaponry mounted on their airplanes, especially their low accuracy.

It is noteworthy that certain combat performances varied (faction wide), which made the successes of airstrikes situational, influenced by factors such as sub-optimal weather conditions or air superiority. This paved the way for an inflated view, commonly accepted and still present today.

In order to better understand the core issue at hand, combat reports, military studies and their respective evaluations allow an insight into the efficiency of destroying AFVs (Tanks in particular) from the Air.The pilots of every nation partaking in the battles of WW2 (particularly in the ETO, European Theatre of Operations) grossly exaggerated the effects and accuracy of their sorties. Literature, movies and video games have contributed to the formation and spreading of historical misconceptions and generated a distorted view on tactical air strikes, not so much to the way they were conducted, but rather their effectiveness in eliminating armored, moving targets. I present to you an article made by the people from Tanks-Encyclopedia.